If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It's a matter of semantics, but the practical impact is that the Steelers had a decision to make: do you take a late third round pick in 2013 or pay an extra $1.3 million dollars to keep Manny Sanders for one year. The Steelers chose the second option. It's no different than if the Steelers had possessed the late third round pick and traded it for a year of Sanders.

It's completely different...

The Patriots were the team willing to give up a 3rd for Sanders...the Steelers just went with the devil they knew...

team already lost wallace and knew miller wouldnt be available for the 1st half of the season. now your asking a team with playoff aspiration to lose yet another receiver that knows the offense. essentially going into the season with AB (before his breakout year) and cotch. annnd as we've seen with wheaton, it isn't easy for a rookie to come in and contribute right away. even a 1st rounder like santonio took half a season to break into the starting line up

Disagree the Steelers err'd in keeping Sanders. They are set up exactly the way they wanted, being a good WR class for mid-level talent says they replace Sanders production without much problem.
Aside from a few draft gaffes (Sweed, Edwards), the Steelers seem to have the knack for finding later round talent to work (or their QB is working miracles to make lesser talent look so good).